About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
a major, new bold investment program, going into a new market, expanding a new technology, ect., you are worried about what the tax rate will be when that's generates cash in nine years. the best thing to do is create a lower rate, an expectation that there's not giant tax increases later. >> i agree with that. i think we should do in, but, a, you know we have the highest statutory right and no higher than average effective rates because we have the narrowest base of owl corporate income in the world. >> yeah. >> one of the reasons we have that system is because people like us argued for many years that the more efficient thing, the more, the better way to encourage investment was not to cut the corporate rate, but to have massively accelerated depreciation, expansion of investment, focusing on incentives rather than cutting the rate overall. i think the intuition is changing, but the way we're going it cut the rate is not by closing loopholes, but come out a painful expansions of the base like getting rid of accelerated depreciation and things which have a value so i think -- >> is
american nation, the congress especially, has caved into this military worship of technology. i've seen that in the last 20 years grow. in the '90s and 2000s, we seem to give a pass always to the military. >> since i get over here about the military, it's almost impossible to criticize anyone in the military because there's such patriotism towards it, and i get that, but it is particularly pronounced in america, it is almost seen as utter disloyalty, if not treachery, to criticize any military man or woman. that's dangerous, isn't it? >> it leads back to rome. go back to the roman empire. the pretorian guard. emperors would pay homage and favors and pay them more money to be loyal to that faction. eventually, the roman guards, military, became more important than the citizenry. of course, they didn't hold up the empire. they are all over the place but they couldn't hold back the barbarians and so forth. it doesn't work. you don't bribe the military. and, frankly, we could be in a position where things get more chaotic and there could be another terrorist attack and this concept of ameri
. trying to use new, smart technology, that kind of stuff, pretending to get solutions and at the same time, let's say the political diplomatic approach doesn't provide solution in the end. so, isn't it a signal that we are shifting from her politics and diplomacy and rely on tools of solutions. >> is the war on terror divided into a problem rather than addressing the more fundamental issues that might have led to the spread in popularity of chiapas in the first place? >> i certainly think the footprint strategy is intended to do exactly what the questioner is suggesting here, which is simply one of containment, but to do without sending in 100,000 troops and accepting a chilling doublers along the way. but you think about the american reaction to 9/11, 9/11 cost the attackers may be have been dollars of "the new york times" went about trying to do an assessment at the 10 year anniversary of what we spend in total in reaction to 9/11. everything from rebuilding the buildings to the wars in afghanistan and iraq to homeland security and so forth. the number we came up with was $3.3 trillion i
be a light footprint with technological containment of the problem. when i hear $3.3 trillion, i hear the bulk of it is because of what happened on 9/11. my question is, in the new normal, what is the role for militant extremism? is it releasing them from jail and giving them a space and controlling them technologically? thank you. >> i will star with the last. if you think the light footprint strategy is all about containment, then it does raise the question of what are the limits of light footprint? what have we discovered it does not do terribly well? it does not build justice or build the kind of global development that paula was discussing before. it deliberately pulls the united states back from a kind of the engagement that we thought in the post-cold war world that we were heading into. and frankly, you might of thought we were heading into it just listening to president obama during the 2008 campaign when he talked mostly about engagement strategy. we did not hear a lot of discussion about what we have all been talking about here today. i think the fact that we have seen the
poorly on the president? >> i'm afraid i blame everything on technology. i don't think this is an unusual thing to happen. it's just that we have a complete electronic trail. i think for thousands of years you've had adultery and all these things. >> brian: you're talk being the actual act. i'm talking about the president knowing. >> i'm also saying i don't think the president would know. you wouldn't have the f.b.i. investigating the c.i.a. if you didn't have all this electronic trail to follow. i don't think you would have all that. >> brian: but this is something that results in some type of blackmail in. >> yes. >> brian: that's the -- >> that's the problem. you have peter king, chairman of the homeland security committee in the house suggesting that perhaps general petraeus' testimony to them was compromised, briefing was compromised. >> brian: because that testimony included? >> the cover-up line about benghazi, which is that this was somehow part of a massive mob stimulated by the -- >> brian: a democrat said this hit me like a lightning bolt. they should have been briefed. >> we k
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)